Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
September 30, 2016, Decided
2015-1769, 2015-1770, 2015-1771
[*1311] [***1355] Dyk, Circuit Judge.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC ("IV") sued Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro1 (together, "appellees" or "defendants") for infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,460,050 ("the '050 patent"), 6,073,142 ("the '142 patent"), and 5,987,610 ("the '610 patent"). The district court held the asserted claims of the '050 patent and the '142 patent to be ineligible under § 101, and the asserted claim of the '610 patent to be eligible. We affirm as to the asserted claims of the '050 patent and '142 patent, and reverse as to the asserted claim of the '610 patent.
IV owns the three patents at issue: the '050 patent, the '142 patent, and the '610 patent. IV sued Symantec and Trend Micro, two developers of anti-malware and anti-spam software, for infringement of various claims of those patents. Against Symantec, IV asserted claims 9, 16, and 22 of the '050 patent; claims 1, 7, 21, and 22 of the '142 patent; and claim 7 of the '610 patent. Against Trend Micro, IV asserted claims 9, 13, 16, 22, and 24 of the '050 patent; and claims 1, 7, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 26 of the '142 patent.
With respect to the two defendants, a § 101 patent eligibility issue arose at different stages of the proceedings. The case against Symantec went to trial. The jury found [**3] that Symantec had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that any asserted claims were invalid under §§ 102 and 103. The jury found Symantec had infringed the asserted claims of the '142 patent and '610 patent, and had not infringed any asserted claims of the '050 patent.2 After trial, Symantec brought a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) for a judgment that all the asserted claims of the three patents-in-suit are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an issue not addressed in the jury verdict.
The case against Trend Micro did not go to trial. Trend Micro brought a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 for all of the asserted claims.3 After Trend Motion had submitted its motion, IV withdrew its assertion of claim 7 of the '610 patent against Trend Micro, the only claim of the '610 patent asserted against Trend Micro. Thus the motions raised issues of patent eligibility as to the '050 and '142 patents with respect to both defendants, and as to the '610 patent only with respect to Symantec.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
838 F.3d 1307 *; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17695 **; 120 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1353 ***
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SYMANTEC CORP., Defendant-Cross-Appellant, TREND MICRO INCORPORATED, TREND MICRO, INC. (USA), Defendants-Appellees
Subsequent History: Costs and fees proceeding at, Motion granted by Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Trend Micro Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162795 (D. Del., Sept. 24, 2018)
Prior History: [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:10-cv-01067-LPS, 1:12-cv-01581-LPS, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 100 F. Supp. 3d 371, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (D. Del., Apr. 22, 2015)
Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART.
patent, software, screening, inventive, virus, network, abstract idea, e-mail, asserted claim, generic, conventional, eligibility, message, technology, telephone, filtering, quotation, marks, district court, post office, functions, recites, patent-eligible, users, computer data, communicating, viruses, ineligible, innovation, well-known
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Subject Matter